The Super-Star Theory or How to Win an NBA Title

Disclaimer: As I note at the end of this column, I do not necessarily believe “The Super-Star Theory”.Still I think it is interesting.

Last May I wrote a column published in the New York Times entitled “The Short Supply of Competitive Balance.” In this column I noted, “Of the 30 current N.B.A. teams, 14 have never won a championship. Five franchises — Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Pistons and Spurs — have won 70 percent of all titles.”

The distribution of championships in the NBA stands in stark contrast to what we see in the other major North American sports.In The Wages of Wins we observe, “If we look at other sports, championships are distributed a bit more equally. If we look at the past twenty years, eleven different franchises have taken the Stanley Cup in hockey. Football does a bit better, with twelve teams winning the Super Bowl in the NFL over this time frame. In baseball, the sport that supposedly suffers from a competitive balance problem, fourteen different teams won a World Series from 1986 to 2006. Of these fourteen, only four won multiple titles: the New York Yankees, Florida Marlins, Toronto Blue Jays, and the Minnesota Twins” (p. 65).

The disparity in how championships are distributed in the NBA was explained in both The New York Times and The Wages of Wins via a discussion of The Short Supply of Tall People.This argument has already been discussed in this forum in the following posts:

Obviously for regular readers of this forum, the “Short Supply” argument is yesterday’s news.My purpose in bringing this theory up again is to build upon the post entitled The Pareto Principle and the New Boston Celtics.The Pareto Principle story was offered last Thursday, and appears to have been well received (WordPress indicates this post has been viewed over 6,000 times and thus far there have been 35 – mostly positive — comments).The basic argument offered (in this odd application of a 19th century Italian economist’s work) is that most wins (about 80%) come from just a few players (about 20%).In other words, the vast majority of NBA players don’t contribute much to their team’s level of success.

When we think about the Short Supply argument – which argues there is a limited supply of extremely productive basketball players – we see why the Pareto Principle would work in the NBA.

The Importance of the Super-Star

This point can be further illuminated via a review of the teams who have won the NBA championship since 1980.Here is a list of those teams and the player who led each franchise in Wins Produced when it won its title (or is most cases, titles).

– Los Angeles Lakers (1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988): Magic Johnson

– Boston Celtics (1981, 1984, 1986): Larry Bird

– Philadelphia 76ers (1983): Moses Malone

– Detroit Pistons (1989, 1990): Dennis Rodman

– Chicago Bulls (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998): Michael Jordan

– Houston Rockets (1994, 1995): Hakeem Olajuwon

– San Antonio Spurs (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007): Tim Duncan

– LA Lakers (2000, 2001, 2002): Shaquille O’Neal

– Detroit Pistons (2004): Ben Wallace

– Miami Heat (2006): Shaquille O’Neal

What do Magic, Bird, Malone, Rodman, J0rdan, Olajuwon, Duncan, Shaq, and Wallace have in common?

Let’s note first what they don’t have in common.Every position on the court is represented in this list. Plus we see players who are scorers and those who are not.In essence, this is a fairly diverse list of talent.

What they have in common, though, is that every single one has a career average WP48 (Wins Produced per 48 minutes) that is in excess of 0.300.An average WP48 is 0.100 (because an average team will win 0.500 games per 48 minutes), so each of these players, for their career, was three times as productive as the average player.And not a single team has won a title since 1980 without one of these players, who I think should be called Super-Stars.

Small Exceptions

Okay, a couple of issues to note before I paint a bigger picture. First, I have Hakeem’s WP48 at 0.299 for his career (which is pretty damn close to 0.300). And Shaq didn’t lead the Miami Heat in 2006 in Wins Produced. Dwyane Wade was the leader (although Wade’s WP48 that season was 0.301).But despite these small exceptions, we do seem to have a general rule of thumb.

An NBA team must have one player who is truly exceptional to take home the title.Or in other words, teamwork is nice and wonderful, but you need a Super-Star to be a champion.

The Kevin Garnett Trade

All of this brings us to the Kevin Garnett trade.There have only been six players whose careers began after 1991 who posted a career WP48 in excess of 0.300 (of those who played more than two seasons).These six are Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion, Shaq, Duncan, Wallace, and KG.Kidd and Marion just clear the 0.300 barrier, with marks of 0.302 and 0.303 respectively.The other four each clear the 0.330 mark for their career.And of these four, only KG has failed to win an NBA title.In fact, the last nine titles have been won by teams employing Duncan, Shaq, or Wallace.

And hence we come to the point of this post.A necessary, although not sufficient, ingredient in building a title team appears to be the employment of a Super-Star.Such players are exceedingly rare in the NBA.And it appears that winning a title without such players is very difficult.

But just because you have such a player, it doesn’t mean you get to win a title.And Kevin McHale, the only general manager KG knew in Minnesota, has spent the past twelve years demonstrating this point.Twelve times McHale tried to build a champion around KG.Twelve times he didn’t even come close.

The magnitude of this failure is hard to exaggerate.Given the scarcity of these players, most NBA teams never employ a player like Garnett.Again, there have only been six in the past 16 seasons. This means – if we take this theory to be literally true (which I will express some doubts about in a moment) — most NBA teams really have no chance to win a title.

McHale, though, was given twelve chances.And this means if you are a Timberwolves fan, you might be just a tiny bit unhappy over what happened this past week.

Significant Qualifying Comments

Okay, let me take a huge step back and qualify all I just said.The evidence presented suggests that you must have a Super-Star – which is defined as a player with a career WP48 in excess of 0.300 – to win a title.But theoretically, why would that have to be the case?

It’s certainly not the case that each playoff series is won by the team with the best player.And it’s not the case that you can’t build an extremely good team without a Super-Star.A case in point is the Dallas Mavericks this past season. The Mavericks won 67 games last year and didn’t have a Super-Star (Nowitzki’s career mark is 0.232, although he was at 0.306 in 2006-07).Does the evidence presented here tell us that the Mavericks with Nowitzki are doomed to finish each season with a loss because they don’t have one of these players?

I find that hard to believe.What I do believe is that a team must have a player or two who are extremely productive to win consistently (and the Mavericks do have very productive players, so they qualify).

Still if the Super-Star theory is literally correct, only Boston, Chicago, Miami, New Jersey, Phoenix, and San Antonio can win a title in 2008. Of course, I would emphasize, although the Super-Star theory has held for 28 consecutive years, I can’t believe this is an iron clad rule that will never be broken.So fans of the remaining 24 franchises – including the Mavericks — shouldn’t despair.Well, at least some of them shouldn’t despair just yet.

By the way, if you want to read more on Kevin Garnett and Kevin McHale, the following posts might be of interest.

28 Responses to "The Super-Star Theory or How to Win an NBA Title"

You can start now and eliminate Boston and
Phoenix for lack of depth. Something will trip
them up along the way. You can eliminate Dallas
because their coach is dumb enough to play
their best defender for 8 minutes a game
against Golden State.

You can eliminate New Jersey because the rest
of the tem after Vince and Kidd has a negative
win total.

That leaves Chicago, Miami and San Antonio.
Miami needs a major overhaul but they also
have Shaq and Wade which makes this overhaul
less daunting.

Next we have San Antonio. What can you say
that hasn’t been said. I don’t think their team
is going to change at all and Popovich is
a genius because he refuse to play anyone for
big minutes. San Antonio might win 70 games
a year if he did, however that would be to
the detriment of the team.

Next you have Chicago. In my opinion they
got the next great championship piece when
they drafted Noah. To have him coming off
the bench elevates them to the favorites in my
opinion. This team is loaded with talent
and they too could afford to sit the starts
for 15 minutes a night if they choose. The
Bulls should crush 50 wins easy this year.
If they don’t play the Celtics in the Eastern
Finals I will be shocked

Very good post, as usual. I’m a Wolves fan and I definitely am livid when I think about the past 12 years. When the trade happened I was mildly satisfied if only because I believe there is not enough time to rebuild the team in Garnett’s window, even if we had a great GM (which we don’t).

But now we don’t have the Super-Star to build around, and I’d be alright with that if we were able to do it the “Dallas way”. But having the same management – not just McHale but also Jim Stack and Rob Babcock as well – that seems all but impossible. My preference was that the McHale administration be part of the Garnett trade but it didn’t happen. Consider our drafting… when we’re not trading our draft picks for undesirable players (Marko Jaric and Ricky Davis come to mind in recent years), we’re usually blowing the picks to unproductive players. I’d really like to see the career win shares of our draft picks during the Garnett era, but the Win Score stats site only has the scores from last year. I’d guess there were only a handful of players with an above average career wp/48.

Matt, its my guestimation that Minnesota
has 2 above average players, 3 if Brewer ends
up being better than I think he will.

Only 4 more players to go and Minnesota
can be good. Hey, its a good thing they
got that draft pick back from Boston. If they
do their homework really well they can get
2 really nice pieces in next year’s draft.

They should be trying to deal Foye right now
before everyone figures out he’s going to
suck. Then they should pick up Brevin Knight.
Maybe Gerald Green will end up being a good
player but right now it doesn’t seem. Him
being a young swing man he could be on the
Gerald Wallace plan.

Speaking of Gerald Wallace here
are my 5 teams who didnt make the playoffs
that will make it this year.

Boston(obviously)
Atlanta(adding Horford and AC Law was tremendous)
Portland(nice young pieces)
Charlotte(Sean May must stay healthy,
Morrison must sit, with Richardson on the
team he should sit a bunch)
Memphis(Gasol all year, added Conley Jr.
have Lowry back this year)

Actually if Sean May stays healthy
and Richardson takes all of Morrison’s
minutes(2300 minutes) then Charlotte is
looking at 50 win team. Sean May would add
about 5 wins by playing 2400 minutes, and
Richardson would add about 13 by playing
Morrison’s minutes and being averge. Morrison
was worth -8 points and an average dude would
put up 5 wins in 2400 minutes. That adds up
to 13 more wins then last year.

With Boston also looking at a 50 win team

That makes 4 50 wins teams in the east.
Charlotte,Det, Boston, and Chicago with Cleveland
possibly being the 5th. That doesnt leave
very many spots in the lower 3.

Toronto, New Jersey, Orlando and Washington

all need to watch out because Atlanta is
coming for one of those spots. Orlando
has Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis which
I think catapults then to the 6th seed.

So Jersey, Toronto, and Washington will
be fighting over the last spot with Washington
being the odd man out because they dont
even have a .200 player.

Is anyone else starting to think that with
Garnett, and Lewis coming to the East the
balance of power does not necessarily belong
to the West any longer. Combine that with
draft picks such as Okafor, Howard, and
Lebron James in the past 4 years the best young
players also reside in the East.

Charlotte with Morrison being replaced
as a starter by Richardson could gain
as many as 13 wins this season. Combine
that with the possibility of Sean May
playing full time minutes and Charlotte
could gain as many as 18 wins this year.
This could vault them close to 50 wins
next year.

Then you have Boston, Detroit, Chicago,
and Cleveland. That brings us to the
possibility of 5 50 win teams in the East.

Watch out for the east this year. And watch out
for Atlanta to come steal a spot
from Washington. Washington has no .200
player so they are running on borrowed time.
Every playoff team was already better or got
better than the wizards. My Zards are screwed
and they missed out on a grand opportunity
by not signing Crittendon. He is going to
be the sleeper of the year.

[…] Sports in Boston The Kevin Garnett drama in audio and video Wages of Wins Journal The superstar theory or how to win a championship Get Garnett Celtics were the only player for KG T’Wolves Blog Where […]

Shawn Marion is a regular season player and that’s where he wins games but he consistently comes up short against the Spurs in the regular season and the post-season (except for the 1st half of game 5, which is the basically the only time you will have seen the Spurs consistently guard Marion with a big.) Marion is a great rebounder, and he’ll get his rebounds no matter what, or come close to it (Lamar Odom dominated him in several games in the playoffs two years ago, and did decently last year even though it seemed like he wasn’t trying) but if NBA coaches were smarter and forgot that there is such a position as power forward and instead guarded Marion with someone his own size (like Bruce Bowen or even Michael Finley) rather than a traditional power forward (like Dirk Nowitzki, Marion completely dominates Dallas) he’d be largely ineffective on the offensive end of the court, because most of his value there comes in being able to take advantage of the help defense that Steve Nash creates and the step or two step advantage he gets on a bigger man who has to recover to him. He’s a good offensive player and thus a “superstar” only because teams allow him to be, though he’d be a good player regardless because of his defense and rebounding.

B,
His value comes mainly in the form
of rebounding, efficient shooting, and
not turning the ball over. The points can
always come from somewhere else but without
his effort in the aforementined areas the Suns
would not be as great or competitive as they
are.

But he takes a lot of shots, whether they’re going in or not. It’s one of his flaws as a player, he wants to be considered as a great great player and to be considered as such, you have to score points.

Plus the points can’t always come from somewhere else, at least not as efficiently. If a team depends on a guy scoring 18-20 points on 12-14 shots and then all of sudden, he’s scoring 11 points on 12 shots, that’s a huge change. This year’s playoffs aren’t a great example because Popovich changed his strategy on how to play the Suns, perhaps because they have more ways to score now. This year he chose to guard Nash with Bowen instead of Marion, but in 2004-2005, in 5 games with Bowen on him, he shot 18-46 (3.3-9.2), 1-7 from 3, and averaged about 8 points per game. Do superstars shoot like that in the playoffs? In the Lakers series I was talking about, he didn’t very well over the first 5 games, less than 9 per game when he had been averaging 11.5 per the season, and aside from 1 game when he scored 20 points on 13 shots, averaged about 1 point per shot and still shot 15-20 shots a game.) Meanwhile, Lamar Odom goes off against Marion far above his averages. In 2005-2005, he averaged 14.8 points and 9.2 rebounds on 11 shots per game and yet against Marion in the playoffs, he averaged 22 points and 11 rebounds on 14 shots per game while still averaging about 5 assists and 3 turnovers a game. Last year was more of the same with Odom having his scoring averages stay relatively consistent, the increase in scoring mostly attributable probably to an increase in pace, but averaging 13 rebounds a game as well, and putting in a completely dominating performance in the only game it looked like he tried in (Game 5), 33 points, 21 shots, 10 rebounds. And historically, his splits against Phoenix indicate something similar, that he happens to be a much better player against them than he is against almost everything else. Maybe, Odom just likes playing up tempo basketball, or maybe he consistently outplays Marion. (Look at Marion’s stats against teams that Odom was on, Marion occasionally scores well, but he usually gets outrebounded, sometimes drastically and Odom generally puts up good scoring numbers as well. Can eveyr player do that? Probably not, do most elite teams have a defender who could drastically affect Marion’s game? I think so.)

It obviously doesn’t constitute definitive evidence, though I think it is suggestive, that with a good defensive player you can change Shawn Marion’s game to make him drastically less effective than he is against most of the league that chooses to guard him with a traditional power forward, changing the complexion of what Phoenix likes to do. Perhaps not overall, but as an offensive player, he’s a secondary guy, the guy you should aim to shut down because you probably can, whereas Nash, unless you have Quinton Ross, Shaun Livingston, and perhaps Tayshaun Prince, you probably aren’t going to change what he does besides with a player like Tim Duncan (who from watching the series was far more of a factor in slightly limiting than Nash than Bowen.) And I’d bet against San Antonio over the last several years, and possibly against the Lakers, he hasn’t been a .300 WP48 player + you have to consider against the Lakers that the guy he’s playing against plays better against him than he does against almost anyone else in the league.

You couldn’t do that with any of those other superstars. Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Olajuwon, Rodman, Jordan, they were going to do what they did best, no matter who you put on them.

I think perhaps, more important than a career .300 WP48 is that someone on a championship team probably will be playing at about that level, if not during the regular season, than at the very least throughout the playoffs. Wouldn’t Dirk and Wade both have qualified in 2005-2006 for their playoff performances, when the referees blew at least two games? Because if the referees didn’t, you’d have a Dallas team with no .300 WP48 for his career having won the championship. And by that measure, wouldn’t Dallas be a more legitimate championship contender in all likelihood than Chicago who aren’t likely to have any players who are in that range of player next year?

He may not have the career WP to make him a Super-Star, but, as a Jazz fan, I’m encouraged by the 0.351 WP48 Carlos Boozer posted this past season. If he continues his superlative performance, Deron Williams continues to improve, and Andrei Kirilenko plays closer to his All-Star form, is there any reason the Jazz can’t be mentioned in the same breath as the Spurs and Suns?

B,
We agree. If Marion would take less shots
in the playoffs and let someone else
take those shots he’s missing he would
have an even higher wp48. Maybe he needs
to recognize that he is more Rodman circa
90′ than Worthy Circa 83′. If he could
just do the little things and take easy
shots his team would be much better off.
I think we are saying the same thing.

Bryan,
The problem with Boozer playing so well
is that his stellar play limits what Andrei
can do for the team. Boozer has taken
over alot of what Kirilenko did for the team
but Andrei is still a .177 guy.

What the Jazz need is a much better 2-guard.
Maybe Brewer will be that this year.

I once read an article by (I think) Hollinger about this exact subject.

I can’t find it :(

He(Whoever wrote the article, again I think it was John, but I also think I read it 2 years ago) broke down the top 25 or so players in history and showed how to win the title you need to have a player in the top 10, and preferably a player in the next top 15.

I think the super-star theory may be due to the fewer # of players on the court at a time. In baseball or football or hockey there are many more players involved, which allows the oppposing team to nuetralize the great players better. I think about Tennis, where the best players win the majors a lot more often than the average players. Even in golf, , where the randomness factor is higher, the best players win far more often than most others.

[…] Although Kobe’s team has not been a contender since Shaq departed in 2004 (and as it is currently constructed, will not contend in 2007-08), the inability to win consistently cannot be attributed to Kobe. Of all the players taken in the 1996 draft, Kobe has been the most productive. This past season Kobe produced more wins than any other shooting guard in the Association. In sum, Kobe is a really good basketball player (although with a career WP48 – Wins Produced per 48 minutes — of 0.202, he would not be defined as a Super-Star). […]

You listed Dennis Rodman as the star of the 89-90 piston championship teams. Unless I’m missing something, you should have your NBA pass revoked. His name is Isaiah Thomas. His name is Isaiah Thomas. Keep repeating that until you get it. I’m a Chicago fan, and I hate Thomas, but even i have to admit he was the heart and soul of that pistons team. The toughest guy, the dirtiest, the best player.

“And Shaq didn’t lead the Miami Heat in 2006
in Wins Produced. Dwyane Wade was the leader
although Wade’s WP48 that season was 0.301”
Just one question, if wade was the WP48 leader
for the team why not just put his name up
instead of Shaq’s, it would eliminate the
exception part of the blog.

Hate to say it but celtics are gonna easily win at last two of the next 5 championships. that trio is amazing and in the nba having 3 superstars is dominant. all they have to do is work together and jell and they have everything they need…….. considering the 3 are not “me me me” guys and they are all different positions that complement each other on the court that should leave a WHOLE BUNCH of worried fans for every team other than the celtics out there. next 4 or 5 years celtics should dominate not only the east but the entire nba.

ray allens best year overall in my opinion was in 2000-2001, and also that was his best year for wins produced where he was 7th in the league (3rd in win shares) and his wp48 was .272 (higher than kobe has ever had)….. in 2002 paul pierce had his best year statistically and was around the .3 mark for wp48 and produced one more win han allen did in 2001…… and in 2004 kevin garnett had his mvp year and his best year in terms of wp48 as well………. so seeing as these were all 3 of their best years and its no coincidence that these were their 3 best and most successful teams that they have ever been on::: looking into next year is it safe to say that all 3 may have the best years of their career??? each of the 3 has never been on a team with this level of talent/this good before and the best teams theyve been on were the years they were at their best……… understand what im saying? do you think these 3 will complement each other that well and all 3 each have the best/greatest years of their career in the coming years together in boston? i predict they will if that holds to form.